We have convinced ourselves that the way to make AI safe is to make it unsafe. Since 2022, policymakers worldwide have embraced the Regulation Sacrifice - the belief that dismantling safety oversight will deliver security through AI dominance. Fearing China or USA will gain advantage, nations rush to eliminate safeguards that might slow progress. This Essay reveals the fatal flaw: though AI poses national security challenges, the solution demands stronger regulatory frameworks, not weaker ones. A race without guardrails breeds shared danger, not competitive strength. The Regulation Sacrifice makes three false promises. First, it promises durable technological leads. But AI capabilities spread rapidly - performance gaps between U.S. and Chinese systems collapsed from 9 percent to 2 percent in thirteen months. When advantages evaporate in months, sacrificing permanent safety for temporary speed makes no sense. Second, it promises deregulation accelerates innovation. The opposite often proves true. Companies report well-designed governance streamlines development. Investment flows toward regulated markets. Clear rules reduce uncertainty; uncertain liability creates paralysis. Environmental standards did not kill the auto industry; they created Tesla and BYD. Third, enhanced national security through deregulation actually undermines security across all timeframes. Near term: it hands adversaries information warfare tools. Medium term: it democratizes bioweapon capabilities. Long term: it guarantees deployment of uncontrollable AGI systems. The Regulation Sacrifice persists because it serves powerful interests, not security. Tech companies prefer freedom to accountability. Politicians prefer simple stories to complex truths. This creates mutually assured deregulation, where each nation's sprint for advantage guarantees collective vulnerability. The only way to win is not to play.

翻译：我们已使自己相信，使人工智能安全的方法就是使其不安全。自2022年以来，全球政策制定者都接受了"监管牺牲论"——即相信通过拆除安全监管体系，将借助人工智能优势实现安全。由于担心中美任何一方获得优势，各国竞相废除可能减缓技术进步的安全保障措施。本文揭示了这一致命缺陷：尽管人工智能带来国家安全挑战，但解决方案需要更强而非更弱的监管框架。没有护栏的竞赛滋生的是共同危险，而非竞争优势。"监管牺牲论"作出了三个虚假承诺。首先，它承诺持久的技术领先。但人工智能能力扩散迅速——中美系统间的性能差距在13个月内从9%缩小至2%。当优势在数月内消失时，为短暂的速度牺牲永久安全毫无意义。其次，它承诺去监管能加速创新。事实往往相反。企业报告表明精心设计的治理体系能优化开发流程。投资流向受监管的市场。明确的规则减少不确定性；不确定的责任归属导致发展停滞。环境标准并未扼杀汽车产业；反而催生了特斯拉和比亚迪。第三，通过去监管增强国家安全实际上损害了所有时间维度的安全。短期：它为对手提供信息战工具。中期：它使生物武器能力民主化。长期：它保证了不可控的通用人工智能系统的部署。"监管牺牲论"持续存在是因为它服务于强权利益而非安全。科技公司偏爱自由而非问责。政客偏爱简单叙事而非复杂真相。这形成了"相互确保的去监管化"，每个国家追逐优势的冲刺都确保了集体的脆弱性。唯一的获胜方式就是不参与这场游戏。